cant seem to grasp why mame is 'illegal' for commercial use

[ark_ader]

Haze, it isn't that we do not enjoy what MAME has given, (I am not sure Saint's book would not have had the popularity which MAME has brought) that is echoed a million times throughout the world.  So many platforms enjoy MAME from computers to hand-held devices.  Games that we loved are wonderfully presented, right on our desktops.  Documentation and examples for those future developers who will benefit from the many programmers out there is just completely amazing.  It is not clear why MAME cannot be used for commercial use.

Is MAME a self-imposed repository for information like the Library Of Congress designation (apologies Haze but mame.net and mamedev.org is registered in the USA)?  Is MAME considered public domain or does it have agreements with other entities like Ultracade?  Do companies connected to archived product have a legal right to use such code in their commercial endeavors?

My questions are to be deemed hypthetical (and I'm not asking Haze to answer.  I'm just throwing this out here for general discussion), but in a world where MAME is compared to the MP3 player, perhaps MAME should become a commercial entity.  If we all paid to use MAME it would at least provide funds for more PCB purchases.

Haze mentioned Ultarcade and how game packs had mirrored behaviors like in MAME.

Alternatively David Foley / Ultracade could have attempted to reverse engineer the hardware themselves and emulate the original.  Did they?  No.  They relied on the information that MAME had already discovered, and simply emulated the same bootleg supported by MAME that 'works'.  (I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with this as we state that the information is free to use, even if the implementation isn't)

So even with what are meant to be legitimately licensed games it is quite clear that the MAME developers are doing the majority of the work in discovering how these things work, demonstrated by this case and the clear lack of effort in actually supporting the original game.

This isn't the only example, plenty of times people have reported to us that Ultracade has the same emulation bugs as MAME in several of their games (several of the Capcom titles IIRC), pointing clearly that MAME is being used at the very least as a definitive reference for how they work; other emulators which aren't based on the information in MAME have their own sets of bugs, because they've been reverse engineered and figured out by different people, who came to different conclusions so it's quite clear what their reference is because no 2 people think in exactly the same way.

Of course, some people have simply concluded that this means Ultracade is MAME, but there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim at this time, and you would get the same outcome if you simply used all the information in MAME without checking it yourself which assuming the guys behind Ultracade are of good integrity is probably what was done.

This is extremely interesting, and maybe all the questions will be answered when the Foley/Ultracade issue goes to court.  If it all ends up in tears, will there be any knock on effect for the emulation community as a whole?

[Haze]

Haze, it isn't that we do not enjoy what MAME has given, (I am not sure Saint's book would not have had the popularity which MAME has brought) that is echoed a million times throughout the world.  So many platforms enjoy MAME from computers to hand-held devices.  Games that we loved are wonderfully presented, right on our desktops.  Documentation and examples for those future developers who will benefit from the many programmers out there is just completely amazing.  It is not clear why MAME cannot be used for commercial use.

As outlined elsewhere in this thread, there is a significant difference between things being done for profit, and non-profit.  MAME is non-commercial, and non-profit, and we wish it to remain that way.  I believe that by stating people can use the information freely we're being fair; the value of MAME is in the information, not the code.  You could probably reimplement everything in MAME in a fraction of the time it took to discover everything.  I believe the current arrangement to be balanced and fair, it means there is no pressure on the developers, and at the same time gives people an incredibly useful reference when they need it.

Is MAME a self-imposed repository for information like the Library Of Congress designation (apologies Haze but mame.net and mamedev.org is registered in the USA)?  Is MAME considered public domain or does it have agreements with other entities like Ultracade?  Do companies connected to archived product have a legal right to use such code in their commercial endeavors?

My questions are to be deemed hypthetical (and I'm not asking Haze to answer.  I'm just throwing this out here for general discussion), but in a world where MAME is compared to the MP3 player, perhaps MAME should become a commercial entity.  If we all paid to use MAME it would at least provide funds for more PCB purchases.

Aaron is in the US and registered the site etc.  That doesn't really reflect development.  Honestly I don't see why MAME should be a commercial entity, or be available for commercial use, it just adds further complications which get in the way of development; this isn't our jobs, it isn't meant to be.  You can hypothesise as much as you want, I simply see no REAL benefit.

Haze mentioned Ultarcade and how game packs had mirrored behaviors like in MAME.

Alternatively David Foley / Ultracade could have attempted to reverse engineer the hardware themselves and emulate the original.  Did they?  No.  They relied on the information that MAME had already discovered, and simply emulated the same bootleg supported by MAME that 'works'.  (I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with this as we state that the information is free to use, even if the implementation isn't)

So even with what are meant to be legitimately licensed games it is quite clear that the MAME developers are doing the majority of the work in discovering how these things work, demonstrated by this case and the clear lack of effort in actually supporting the original game.

This isn't the only example, plenty of times people have reported to us that Ultracade has the same emulation bugs as MAME in several of their games (several of the Capcom titles IIRC), pointing clearly that MAME is being used at the very least as a definitive reference for how they work; other emulators which aren't based on the information in MAME have their own sets of bugs, because they've been reverse engineered and figured out by different people, who came to different conclusions so it's quite clear what their reference is because no 2 people think in exactly the same way.

Of course, some people have simply concluded that this means Ultracade is MAME, but there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim at this time, and you would get the same outcome if you simply used all the information in MAME without checking it yourself which assuming the guys behind Ultracade are of good integrity is probably what was done.

This is extremely interesting, and maybe all the questions will be answered when the Foley/Ultracade issue goes to court.  If it all ends up in tears, will there be any knock on effect for the emulation community as a whole?

The cases seem very specific, I doubt we'll find out what license there was with Seibu over Seibu Cup Soccer / Goal '92, and unless somebody pulls Ultracade apart and finds that it IS Mame then their source code is never going to be available for reference either, so I doubt the current legal case will reveal all that much.

Naturally various people on the MAME team are disappointed that doubts have been raised over the legaility of Ultracade, as it's always been a useful product to point people at when they want a legal option for fully licensed multi-game, non-mame cabinets, and until the legal situation is cleared up we can't recommend purchasing the units at all as there is every chance they might be declared just as illegal and unlicensed as running a MAME cab with unlicensed roms.

Will there be a knock on effect?  I doubt it.  The developers will continue to do what the developers do.  If one day MAME emulates Ultracade, there will be comments indicating that it was / wasn't licensed, and it becomes part of history like everything else.  The 0-day warezing of those Taito PC based arcade games is more likely to have negative effects on emulation and arcade scene as a whole because those are new games that Taito are actively marketing.  That has nothing to do with MAME, and isn't condoned by anybody on the team tho.  It always amazes me when people approach the team / developers about cracking the latest arcade games, then get angry / surprised when we say we're not interested. 

[ark_ader]

OK, I do have legal training (University of Arizona 1999), and lets look at some precedents:  (I should state that I am not a lawyer, as I have never taken the Bar exam because I decided on another career path.)

I should have clarified my statement about MAME - it DOES contain proprietary code, but not proprietary code relevant to the ROM sets, only proprietary and owned by MAMEDev.

Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc Vs Connectix Coporation  - The courts ruled that as long as a BIOS encryption was reverse-engineered and not simply copied and stolen, it was legal.  This should cover your assertions about the legality of the CPS2 encryption, and more importantly, it was upheld on appeal AFTER the DMCA went into effect.  (And is therefore a different situation than Sega vs Accolade.)  From the ruling:

"Some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others. Sony's BIOS lay at a distance from the core because it contains unprotected aspects that cannot be examined without copying. The court of appeal therefore accorded it a lower degree of protection than more traditional literary works."

http://web.archive.org/web/20070228070634/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0/66b3a352ea33712988256952007578c2?OpenDocument


Sega vs Accolade - Accolade lost this case, but the court upheld that disassembly of code is permitted under the fair use rule if the primary reason is to get to the parts of the code that are not copyrighted.  Again, this goes to your assertion about the CPS2 code.  In addition, this goes to why MAME can't be used for commercial purposes and why that is written into the license.  (Accolade lost the case because their primary reason for doing so was to circumvent the copy protection for profit.  This is also how MAME can be work as a non-profit entity, and why you can't sell it.)

http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm


Here's another nice article (from the U of Iowa law journal) which explains things a bit further:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/yi3.html

They accepted Connectix's defense, which entailed the following use of the Fair Use doctrine:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

You can find the references at the article's site.


All of this boils down to: emulators are legal because they are protected by reverse engineering laws and laws governing the use of commercial copyrights.  That's also the reason why they put "non-commercial" use clauses in the license, because "for profit" opens them up to a HUGE amount of civil lawsuits.

I have been reviewing my college assignment based on the implications of reverse engineering and the DMCA and I was puzzled by the Sony vs Connectix ruling when I found (during my researching) that because the ruling falls under fair use, the DMCA doesn't consider fair use as an exception, thus bringing the court ruling into question.

"Sony Sues Connectix and Bleem
Sony has used DMCA to sue competitors who created emulation software that permits gamers to play PlayStation console games on PCs. In 1999, Sony sued Connectix, the maker of the Virtual Game Station, a PlayStation emulator for Macintosh computers. Sony also sued Bleem, the leading vendor of PlayStation emulator software for Windows PCs.

In both cases, Sony claimed that competitors had violated the DMCA by engaging in unlawful circumvention, even though the development of interoperable software has been recognized by the courts as a fair use under copyright law. Because courts have suggested that the DMCA trumps fair use, however, the DMCA has become a new legal weapon with which to threaten those who rely on reverse engineering to create competing products.

Neither Connectix nor Bleem were able to bear the high costs of litigation against Sony and pulled their products off the market. No similar emulation products have been introduced, effectively forcing gamers to use Sony console hardware if they want to play the PlayStation games they have purchased."  Link

So under the previous posting that considered reverse engineering as an exception and siting the Sony vs Connectix have won, why can I not find a commercial PSX emulator?  Thus another reason why Mame is not for commercial use.  Would Mame then be classed as a competing product if it was made available commercially?

So you have rulings by the courts that say it is legal to reverse engineer a product, then you have the DMCA challenging it.

I find this whole legal process involving reverse engineering completely baffling!

[Ginsu Victim]

[Haze]

So under the previous posting that considered reverse engineering as an exception and siting the Sony vs Connectix have won, why can I not find a commercial PSX emulator?  Thus another reason why Mame is not for commercial use.  Would Mame then be classed as a competing product if it was made available commercially?

Why can't you find a (current) commercial PSX emulator?

probably because nobody cares enough about the PSX anymore, and there is no demand for one, thus nobody has made one?

As for the (current) modern systems, they're several times more complex, and the emulators are significantly more demanding than a PSX emulator was back in the day, also in the case of the GC / Wii the discs can't be read in a PC, for the PS3 not many people have bluray drives (and it's not really viable to emulate on a PC)  Even the free PS2 emulators are very demanding, and have low compatibility.  For the 360, again the hardware is too complex to consider emulating, going back a bit further you have the original Xbox which is basically PC-like hardware, but despite that making it sound easy to emulate it's quite the opposite.  For other older systems like the Dreamcast, again you've got the issue that the discs were GD-Roms, and don't work on a PC.

The PSX was a special case at that time, it had a lot of exclusive games that weren't available on the PC, it was viable to emulate on a modest system at the time, and the discs would work in a PC with no messing about other than the actual emulator.

Emulation is more of a hobbist thing anyway, commercial ones are few and far between.  You will find some that are non-free but offer demo versions and can be purchased from the authors but for the most part unless you're licensing some games, you don't really have much worth selling unless it runs games directly from the original media, as the PSX emus like the ones in these cases did at the time.  Commercial products in general have to be polished, easy to use, all-in-1 solutions.  Emulation is for the most part a technical issue that, unless the emulators are prepackaged in a friendly compilation (like the Taito Classics stuff) they don't really make for a good commercial product anyway.  Selling a dreamcast emulator with instructions on how the user can wire up a dreamcast GD-ROM to read the discs isn't really going to appeal to a commercial audience, who will wonder why they can't just use the Dreamcast!  It does appeal to hobbyists tho.

But yeah, show somebody a PSX game now and they'll wonder why it looks so bad.... Early 3D doesn't age well even if you tart it up in an emu.  Nobody *wants* a commercial PSX emulator.  Not even Sony seem to care that much about backwards compatibility anymore (only the first generation of PS3s supported the PS2 games in hardware, and support went downhill from there)  They'll sell some of their old classics (a very limited choice) on the PSN store, but I don't know if they're emulated or ported, and beyond that there simply isn't a market.  Heck all my original PSX discs are falling apart!  Those black-backed discs seem to have a shorter life than standard discs from the period..  I wouldn't want to work on the support line for a commercial PSX emulator if people were trying to use it with discs in this condition.


  

[RayB]

@Ark: The purpose of Bleem was to play PS1 games on a PC, at a time when the PS1 was still for sale.  DMCA has exceptions to the circumvention clauses for the purposes of archiving, or otherwise legitimate use of obsolete software/hardware.

But even so, I think you need to dig deeper in the Bleem case, because as I remember it... part of Sony's alegation was that the only way they could have made Bleem actually work was by use of a particular "bios" software. Thus, having a copy of this bios in Bleem made it a copyright infringement.

[Malenko]

What does bleem have to do with MAME?
 

[ark_ader]

Why can't you find a (current) commercial PSX emulator?

probably because nobody cares enough about the PSX anymore, and there is no demand for one, thus nobody has made one?

Can someone find me a commercial PSX emulator?

Question is, if Connectix had more cash would they have been able to defeat the DMCA, instead of pulling the product off the shelf?

This was interesting as it makes the case for MAME much more clearer.

This was before DMCA, so again, if Sega jumped up and bit a developer who [hypothetically] created a free emulator of the Megadrive/Genesis, would fair use still hold water today?
 

What does bleem have to do with MAME?
 

Have you read the whole thread or just chiming in? 

[Malenko]

this isnt my first reply to the thread, so that should answer your question. This thread is about " why mame is 'illegal' for commercial use" so what does bleem have to do with MAME?  MAME emulates outdated hardware, Bleem emulated hardware that was still being sold in stores, so they have no parallel other then the fact they are emulators. Bleem was created to make money, MAME was not.

Im just not sure why you thinking bring up Accolade VS Sega, which I believe had something to do with them using sega's start up code in unlicensed carts, means anything. No one in here is a copyright lawyer (that I know of) and beyond that  the meat of the MAME devs are in different countries around the world so US laws wouldnt apply.

the DMCA means dick anywhere else in the world.

[ark_ader]

the DMCA means dick anywhere else in the world.

So you have been reading this thread.....

What does Bleem have to do with Mame?  Well it was referenced in a previous post by someone who thought it was important.

You tell me. 

[Malenko]

the DMCA means dick anywhere else in the world.

So you have been reading this thread.....

What does Bleem have to do with Mame?  Well it was referenced in a previous post by someone who thought it was important.

You tell me. 

yeap back on page 2, jmax brought it up and closed the point all in the same post. Bleem reverse engineered the COPYRIGHTED sony BIOS for commercial gains, MAME reverse engineered the CPS2 non-copyright decryption for non commercial gains. Again, no parallel.

cantcha just let this thread die Ark_CHADer? beating a dead horse isnt going to change anything. you just keep bringin up the DCMA even though it doesnt apply, and you bring up the lack of commercial PSX emultors but dismiss the free ones (not withstanding the fact they arent in demand either)

I think since Im bothering to reply I'm part of the problem, so I'll stop

[ark_ader]

You just keep bringing up the DMCA even though it doesn't apply

Really?  Where did you find that?

Looks like we do have legal eagles in our midst.

[Malenko]

You just keep bringing up the DMCA even though it doesn't apply

Really?  Where did you find that?

Looks like we do have legal eagles in our midst.

noooo Im an IT guy who does art work and construction to get by.

you seem to be the legal eagle, so please in stupid retard laymens terms explain to me how a US copyright law is legal precidense in Norway, Finland, Spain, etc Keep in mind, the DMCA is not the EUCD and while it was based on 2 treaties of WIPO , WIPO cannot and does not enforce it outside of US soil. The closest thing Ive found in my minutes and minutes of searching, is Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested when he was on US soil (ie he was not extradited) he was in jail for about a month, released in exchange for his testimony and on December 18, 2002 following a two-week trial in San Jose, California, a jury found that Elcomsoft (his employer) had not wilfully violated the U.S. law.

So instead of me proving why the DMCA doesnt apply , why dont you tell me why it does?

Also, you win, I posted again.

Also, I believe this thread should be moved to politic and religion, where I'll never have to see it again.

[DJ_Izumi]

Really?  Where did you find that?

Looks like we do have legal eagles in our midst.

US Laws don't apply outside of the United States.  Even things like the Berne Convention are pretty clear that only local copyright laws apply even for out of nation works.  For example, in the United States copyright is maintained for 75 years after death of the creator before becoming public domain.  In the Canada it's 50 years.  So here in Canada everything the Disney produced untill 1966 will become public domain in 2016.  In the case of corporations, it's the death of the majority share holder or owner + 50 years, and Walt died in 66.  Whoever took over after him, his death + 50 years will be the next mile stone.  Unless Canadian law changes before then, in six years a lot of Disney works will become public domain and there isn't a single thing anyone in the United States can legally do about it to a Canadian.

Though the general idea of copyright is pretty universal between all industrialized nations and that is summed up as 'Don't copy my ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- till I've been dead for at least 50 years.' with various exceptions between the nations.

[RayB]

DJ, you're right only to an extent. The US and US corporations have done much to heavily push and pursuade other countries to revise their copyright laws and adapt to one more in line with US DMCA. Plenty of countries have been more than happy to hop on board if it means opening or expanding business ties with the US. Australia for example caved not too long ago. Nintendo just won a half million dollar judgement against an Australian seller of Nintendo DS "R4" carts as a result.

The US has pressured Canada in the same way, but we keep shooting down the proposed revisions because they ask to go too far. Major US companies, like the music and movie industries retaliated by releasing propaganda last year that Canada is some how the biggest source of movie piracy. (Was quickly proven wrong, but damage done.)  But big corporations run america, so they keep pushing, and now the US's approach to solving this "problem" of Canada is to push it again in secret. The secret's out though:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/

[SophT]

I Thought MAME IS ALREADY used for commercial operations. I believe Taito Legends for example is nothing but MAME. The game owners will say FY to the mamedevs probably, as they cannot organise to file lawsuits against them.

On the other hand. Think of this scenario: Steve JOBS want's MAME on his iPad store (iPad is auto-rotating 4:3 screen: made for classics!). He pays the mame-org a sum of cash, they think of a nice formula to divide it over members (Nicola getting millionaire and letting go his weird Trademark), and he arranges Taito, Capcom and co send in technicians to better mame even further. Mame goes full GNU open source and the deal is that Apple makes ROMS available for commercial use without DRM in their iPad store, so each Mamer can obtain legal titles. I think it will give more people access in a decent way to our great game heritage. In the end Jobs is only interested in 30% of each ROM sold, whether it is DRM'ed or not, music, app or crap. Does not matter.

Well, IANAL, but after reading through this entire thread I would like to object to the assertion that the iPad was "made for classics!".  That's pure speculation, and I would dare say near "fan-boy", and I would like it stricken from the thread.  Furthermore the poster alleges that Apple would sell legally licensed roms through its iTunes store without DRM- an assertion that has no precedent.  In fact let the records show that iTunes originally sold only DRM music, and continues to sell DRM tv and movies, and has plans for DRM books shortly.

In conclusion, Apple, Jobs, and the iPad can suck it (within the scope of a MAME port to the iPad, it doesn't even have buttons, hardly ideal!)



just trying to lighten the mood...

[J.Max]

This was before DMCA, so again, if Sega jumped up and bit a developer who [hypothetically] created a free emulator of the Megadrive/Genesis, would fair use still hold water today?

Good question...I don't know the answer.  I would GUESS that since most emulators don't include BIOS files (including MAME) that it would still hold up, DMCA or no DMCA. 

[SavannahLion]

Just to bring to attention. A recent change in the landscape of IP issues. I'm not going to bother interpreting what this means for everyone. Since only about half the people are really only listening/reading/understanding what's being said, everyone else seems to have an opinion loosely based on preconceived notions.

In any case, a task force was recently assembled by major IP players which notably excludes any consumer advocate groups. While the task force is comprised almost entirely of the video and music entertainment sectors, what happens with this group can potentially reach beyond its defined scope and affect other industries (namely gaming).

What I find interesting about the task force is it was assembled with the explicit intention to "tackle international piracy." Given that some countries (eg Canada) resist pressures to skew IP rights, this might lead to some interesting pressures and political gambits.

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/02/justice-creates-ip-task-force.php

[Haze]

Can someone find me a commercial PSX emulator?

Question is, if Connectix had more cash would they have been able to defeat the DMCA, instead of pulling the product off the shelf?

Bleem and Connectix VGS were the two commercial PSX emulators.

In the case of Bleem (the Dreamcast version that ran a single game I think) I remember people working in the local games store saying that Sony were putting a lot of pressure on them to not sell it*.  Trying to compete against dirty tactics and lawsuits is hard, no matter how frivolous they are.

To the best of my knowledge there are no other commercial PSX emulators, there is no demand for them, and no real money to be made.  2 commercial emulators is more than most systems have!

* Just as Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc. do these days, insisting games are only available on the actual release date, even if the store has them long before.  Break their 'rules', and find yourself with no release day copies to sell at all.  (How is this legal?)

[SavannahLion]

* Just as Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc. do these days, insisting games are only available on the actual release date, even if the store has them long before.  Break their 'rules', and find yourself with no release day copies to sell at all.  (How is this legal?)

It's been yonkers since I had to deal with it, but it's actually not restricted to just video games. Movies and music have the same potential restrictions. I do know that stores that presale their restricted merchandise before release can and do get pinged with fines. I bought the DVD release of Star Wars IV,V,VI months before their scheduled release. It dawned me two days later that I could go back, buy up every one of their stock and sell it on eBay for a pretty penny. Went back and the store already pulled them off the shelves and stuck them back in the store room (I could see them through the door). I heard later from one of the employees they ended up getting "fined" for each one they sold before the release date.

Point being, people have told me it's written into law somewhere, but no one has ever been able to cite the code. I suspect it has more to do with contractual obligations rather than any specific law.  Only laws I know of restricting the sale of games in this manner exists in Japan.

[Hoopz]

Point being, people have told me it's written into law somewhere, but no one has ever been able to cite the code. I suspect it has more to do with contractual obligations rather than any specific law.  Only laws I know of restricting the sale of games in this manner exists in Japan.

Yes, it's a contract between the distributor and the retail stores.  The distributor says if you want to sell ABC at your store, you have to follow the guidelines to the letter.  The Harry Potter books are a classic example.  If you are going to sell them, you have to meet all of the guidelines and follow all of the rules.

[Haze]

Point being, people have told me it's written into law somewhere, but no one has ever been able to cite the code. I suspect it has more to do with contractual obligations rather than any specific law.  Only laws I know of restricting the sale of games in this manner exists in Japan.

Yes, it's a contract between the distributor and the retail stores.  The distributor says if you want to sell ABC at your store, you have to follow the guidelines to the letter.  The Harry Potter books are a classic example.  If you are going to sell them, you have to meet all of the guidelines and follow all of the rules.

I thought there were laws that would make such contracts illegal in the first place as it's restricting trade etc?  Anyway, that's moving off-topic.  My point was simply that games companies like to use dirty tactics, and even if you have a legal product, they can make it difficult for you to sell it by placing pressure on retailers.

[ark_ader]

So instead of me proving why the DMCA doesnt apply , why dont you tell me why it does?

I decided I won't go near it as I am satisfied on the conclusions from the work I already researched.  It is up to the individual to make up his or her own conclusions.  Again I suggest that a valid argument brought to this thread, should come with a valid reference to the source material researched.

We have comments from Haze whom has spent his valuable his time to bring new ideas into the discussion, and being an ex-Mamedev coordinator, I welcome his point of view, and thank him for his contributions.   

I'm interested in the DMCA and how it can go against fair use once a court has determined so, after considerable cost from each party affected.

How I came to this conclusion:

Hypothetically let's say a person called Jack has a game that they have purchased (Lets say an Acorn Electron Game - Twin Kingdom Valley) and Jack cannot play it anymore because his Electron died.  Jack cannot buy an Electron anymore (hypothetically) but Jack is a budding coder and wants to port it to the PC for his own use.  Unfortunately the game cannot be accessed via an emulator because it has copy protection (it did) so Jack bypass(es) the protection to get at the source code - safe in the knowledge that where fair use comes into play, Jack is covered.

Bug Byte finds out (if they are still around?) and sues Jack for copyright infringement.  Eventually Jack wins due to fair use but the DMCA gets Jack for breaking the copy protection. 

Did Bug Byte sell the game in the US?

When does the game come under US jurisdiction?

Would the DMCA come into play if Jack lived in the USA? 

That is what I am researching at the moment.

It is very interesting.

[Haze]

Hypothetically let's say a person called Jack has a game that they have purchased (Lets say an Acorn Electron Game - Twin Kingdom Valley) and Jack cannot play it anymore because his Electron died.  Jack cannot buy an Electron anymore (hypothetically) but Jack is a budding coder and wants to port it to the PC for his own use.  Unfortunately the game cannot be accessed via an emulator because it has copy protection (it did) so Jack bypass(es) the protection to get at the source code - safe in the knowledge that where fair use comes into play, Jack is covered.

Bypassing copy protection does not give you the 'source code'  The source code is what gets compiled or assembled to create the distributed binary.

The DMCA has various problems, and until it's tested in specific cases it's impossible to tell you exactly what the ruling would be.  What actually *counts* as protection?  The game 'Pairs Love' which is supported in MAME has protection.  When it was first emulated it just worked, the MAME cpu core didn't emulate the exceptions which the protection routine triggered when the protection check failed.  The 'protection' was so weak and badly implemented it may as well have not existed, and nobody even noticed it until some bug fixes were made to the CPU core and it actually started triggering the exceptions, prior to that it worked fine!  Even after that, the only 'protection' was returning a magic number from a certain read.  It's actually hard to know if it really is protection, because you could defeat it without trying by putting a random number generator in and resetting a few times (which is a pretty normal thing to do during development for unknown inputs anyway)  Likewise, sometimes you'll get sound / graphic roms where the data is in an odd order, but it's easy to see what the order should be.  You could call that some kind of encryption / scrambling if you wanted, but on the other hand it could just simply be due to the way the pcb was designed, shorter traces to save money / simplify the design.

Also take the old game 'Civilization' it has a copy protection scheme which involved you having to tell the game which technology came before/after another one.  I 'circumvented' that by remembering all of them, and I'd also made a chart of the technology advances for my own gameplaying reference anyway.  Would me remembering all the combinations be illegal under the DMCA?  Would my chart have been illegal?  Would guides on GameFAQs explaining the technology chain be illegal?  Most of it was just common sense, and knowledge, is that illegal?  It was just facts about how the game worked which also happened to be used as protection.  MAME contains facts about how the hardware works derived from reverse engineering, and isn't much different to this example in reality, it's stuff that's been figured out and learnt as part of, in the case of the game, playing, in the case of MAME, researching.

It's not the only game.. With my original Amiga copy of Pinball Fantasies, there was a word based protection system.. about 1/5th of the time the word was something simple, like 'ball', so on the disc I wrote 'just keep typing ball until it works' because it was far easier than trying to count lines and words in the manual, I guess I 'circumvented' that protection system too just through normal use of the game, and solving a problem (why should I look through the manual when I know that more often than not the word is 'ball'?).  Do you honestly think anybody could possibly rule against that if it happened today?

You can attempt to apply the DMCA to anything and everything if you really want, and you can come up with some pretty comical examples.  I consider your emulation example to be just as ludicrous as the above ones.

The DMCA has clauses for interoperatibility, which is exactly what emulation is, it allows the original software and data to interact with different software / data, but again it's not entirely clear.  Your character Jack could quite easily claim he was doing what he did in the name of interoperatibility.  There are reasons a lot of people claim it's a 'broken' law, and reasons why it so often gets abused.  Again, the only real way you're going to find out is to test it, and I think companies are only likely to want to test it in cases where they think they'll get a favorable outcome and there is significant money involved as to avoid setting precedents which could blow a hole in the entire thing.